white

its just a photo showing just architecture and rubble from an international current event that is seen on major news channels everywhere, people are becomign way too sensitive, is not like theres blood or dead people around in that photograph, so i cant think of any reason not to post it. check how many people die from handguns in Brazil every year, we had a website for the city of Rio alone during the iraq war that compared the number of deaths between Rio de Janeiro and the war, and more people not only died in Rio, but still die today, everyday. so i cant post photographs of Rio de Janeiro? and São Paulo isnt very far behind aswell. I pratically live in the middle of an undeclared civil war with the organized crime. Still, i see no reasons not to show photographs of those cities. and hiding here whats shown everyday on tv is like blocking the sun with a strainer/sifter.

Project lead Joris-Jan van ‘t Land gives his thoughts on the PS4, along with optimizing ARMA. “Optimization is never a single, nor a finished task. We are constantly work in this field and will keep doing so with new hardware and updated drivers. It’s hard to ultimately say whether or not ARMA 3 in its Alpha state is already ‘optimized’. “A large number of users have reported it running better than ARMA 2 on the same systems, while others face issues on their setups. There is also the fact that some optimization has to wait for later stages of development – when the code and data don’t change as frequently. One thing is certain: we do not believe we are ever done optimizing and work on it always.†ARMA 3 is currently scheduled to release in Q3 of 2013. http://gamingbolt.com/bohemia-have-no-plans-to-bring-arma-3-on-the-ps4-praises-sony oh rly =/

Syria would be cool: i would also like a lot of cover to be avaiable on a massive non-destroyed contemporary city with tall buildings. i enjoyed those in graw a lot: this blew my mind at the time: i like stratis open areas and i think it looks great, but i also think there isnt enough/proper cover on the hills and inside forests for medium/close range combat.(not saying isnt realistic, just saying it limits the tactics people use, ending up with long range sniping almost every time) and since theres always high hills next to the avaiable small cities usually its just dumb to engage from upclose. but im hopefull Altis will give us a lot more variety. also custom islands. .

that means this will apply? "The alpha phase usually ends with a feature freeze, indicating that no more features will be added to the software. At this time, the software is said to be feature complete."

"The 100-1 is in reference to certain posters who's almost entire post count is dedicated toward their displeasure at a game" That doesnt really makes sense because someone else repeating themselves wouldnt count as more than 1. Sure, you can just upload the video file aswell since youtube limits the framerate to 30fps, and since ive never saw someone flying the heli showcase with 90fps, i get around 20-25 fps myself, that would be a very cool thing to watch, i would appreciate it. and i find it ironic that you fit inside the intel 4ghz+ niche which are part of the few that have playable fps, usually with around 45 average fps, which means 30 or less minimum fps. ive posted crysis 3 aswell besides bf3 performance screenshots, and others have posted a few other games like f1 2012 and farcry 3. example: http://cdn.overclock.net/d/d3/d3796154_proz20amd.jpeg ask BIS about it, some companies do hire people to post positive feedbacks on foruns as a guerilla marketing strategy, but some people do it for free aswell for some reason i cant fathom. and what about posting an argument and some information to back it up? next time ill just report you for flooding and flaming on posts with no content at all.

the very few that stated they had 45 minimum, or 60-80fps or whatever, i called them out whenever i saw it and asked for proof. can you guess how many came foward to prove their statements? NONE. yes i gave them a few parameters, either using the heli showcase or a few other stuff. what is it with you people and wasteland? to you is that the only mission there is? you should check out the low usage cpu/gpu topic, really, theres a lot of usefull information in there, you should read it. 100-1 eh, care to share how you came about that info? and who has called the devs dumb? please quote whoever that was. and a lot of people come foward to defend BIS and ArmA especially in this forum for pure fanboyism. no it wont, 18-29 fps is unacceptable: (and thats with a top tier computer with a gtx690.) http://i.imgur.com/USKkvXQ.jpg the i3-2100 would be closer to acceptable. and a 8350 is 4ghz. but usually when people is talking about arma 3 they mean an intel overcloked to 4ghz+ and a lot of arma players do that. blind fanboyism aswell.

exthread is about sharing those specific threads into more cores, it does imply that by using it or not would alter the performance with 2 or more cores, thus the reason he asked, but it doesnt and has been shown a few times before when showing that 2 or more cores dont make much of a difference with or without launch parameters, if at all. i can believe that it was a naive question but that would also imply that he ignored every post about the exact same benchmark done before. even the one i posted in which i used affinity aswell, exatcly like in this topic, and like i mentioned, is frustrating to have a huge topic about it with dozens of ppl posting and trying things out only to be ignored. and why would i be angry at him? makes no sense. i´m frustrated indeed, somewhat disappointed, but it doesnt change or affect my arguments. you keep trying to attack me as a person instead of trying to understand and counter my arguments. not knowing enough and being eager to post is your problem, should stick more to facts than your imagination. and now i also know that the low cpu/gpu usage topic is being ignored/dismissed, and that tells me a lot.

I´m not trying to prove it on this topic, the sum of all that has being discussed shows the same thing over and over, i could pick other users posts, or benchmarks like the ones i linked to show the same point. because a lot of people have replicated this, even on a discussion on steam that had a ton of information about this that was closed by Dwarden on steam. I asked the author to share them here and he say he wouldnt bother because that wouldnt change BIS approach to it. SO i respected him by not reposting. but The person i was arguing with on this topic knows and have read all that was there. But like you when someone on a forum attacks me directly, but not my argument, its pretty obvious this person cant argue against what ive stated so then tries to discredit me. this is a mediocre approach and will be pointed out, exatcly like you are trying to do now with your "if you had any brains". can you comprehend how pathetic that approach to arguing sounds? maybe not after all you are using it. Another simple and logic conclusion is that not enough people have complained about this in the past for it to be taken as a priority, and fanboys arent helping at all working directly against what they call "whining". I don´t blame Dwarden as an individual, he has taken upon himself the role of the company´s voice, and i take his statements seriously as if they were made by the company itself, like i would with any other employee of any company out there. when i direct my posts to him im trying to get an counter argument from BIS, not the individual alone, that would be fruitless. its been said by him that the game supports multicore for a long time, but then he says that they are aware of the issue and are going to fix it. well what issue? the game not handling multicore properly? because thats the low usage issue. which is it? he also posted and has insisted that no games have high cpu usage or are very efficient with multithreading, even posting an BIS article about it. but when anyone can verify that the game barely uses more than 2 cores (yes there are a ton of threads that spill into other cores, like the new physics and clouds) because the main threads are bottlenecked by the big thread on the first core and anything else usefull fit fine on the second core (shown by not having significant performance gain with more than 2 cores), and that we can produce games with high usage that scales performancewise with 4 cores or more, then those statements are false, or only apply to certain games, but are not a rule of how multithreading performance in games work. what i take from those statements is whats implied on them, that the engine already is multicore (with proper multithread limited by how multithreading works while already supporting 4 cores or more) and that not much can be done about that, since we shouldnt expect "unrealistic gains" with their "optimizations". they will fix something, but what? multicore support that they say they already have? that unknown misterious issue that wasnt specified? blaming amd drivers also dont help much, since other games handle 4 cores, and sometimes more, just fine, and gets me curious about how would amd respond to that serious statement. Then theres that. right now the alpha doesnt play "fine" with the recommended specs shown on steam, allegedly a rare few have no problem with it though, but like ive said before, i dont use exceptions as the rule. but i have some issues with that for 2 reasons, its no secret the game has a performance problem, same limitation that always existed on ArmA 2, its here on a more demanding game now, its on the most voted issue, usually is on the first page on the steam discussion with a new topic, its on other foruns, reddit aswell, and so, why it isnt on the known issues/sitrep? there are plenty of irrelevant things there though. that reminds me of the "dont expect unrealistic gains" thing. which to me sounds like "it wont change much if at all", and since beta will be in about 2 months according to them (end of Q2)and the rule of thumb is that this kind of main design issue, that i agree it could be considered acceptable in Alpha, shouldnt even get to beta, because i dont expect a game in beta to have its fundamental inner workings (AI threads, AI simulation syncing) reworked. Makes no sense for them to not be clear about it all while letting the userbase shitstorm go on. But still, i hope i´m wrong, i really do. Otherwise i wouldnt be posting, i would love for them to shut me up with clear official statements about it. I could make a small exercise here, the questions i would like simple yes/no to: 1 - Do they know what causes the low cpu usage on cpus with more than 2 cores and are they going to fix it before launch? not try, but fix it (i would guess Y and N) 2 - Will the game share its heaviest thread load across all cores? (or at least 4)? (Kind of the same question but more specific. I would guess N) 3 - Will AI syncing be reworked/fixed so multiplayer doesnt have such a huge impact with offscreen simulations away from the view? (That reminds me of the Suma statement from 2 years ago, which isnt very favorable this close to beta, but that could also solve the performance issue even with the game being "dualcore", i would guess N again.) 4 - Will there be GPU accelerated (particles/physix/clouds) support at launch? (not as important, but i guess those could offload somethings off the cpu at least for nvidia users, thats always usefull and what ususally games with physix do) there you go, i replied truthfully while not deliberatly attacking what would be an failed attempt to imagine who you are and your brain capabilities, you know, like you did. Probably ill get another warn or have everything erased for replying another completely offtopic post directed at me, but even Dwarden encouraged this offtopic discussion by keeping replying to them (my first posts where directly about CPU performance and the topic). and you shouldnt have posted to begin with, your problem is that you lack context. Thats all.

i agree, some rare people get good fps, allegedly at least. but i dont use the exceptions as the rule. also depends on the persons perception of whats playable, to me anything under 30fps is terrible. (and on my sig theres a link showing exatcly how terrible under 30 fps is)

double the recommended game specs, overlclock it over 30% and you will get a barely playable average fps. thats the rule of thumb.

a lot of people have been asking question directly and politely for a long time, more than a month for arma 3 (years when you add arma 2 to it) and have been either ignored or replied with false vague statements like "no game has high usage across all cores". which i showed easily again as being false in a link in this same topic. so yeah when devs state something that is wrong they either dont know better or are lying. so its expected for people to get frustrated and be more direct. and i see no point in partaking on circlejerking or fanboyism. i prefer trying to get the truth, which they avoid at all costs. i think its funny because you start out with a tipical illogical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem and when you know you have no point but to try to flame me into submission you give up accordingly. which i think its fine. and i agree answering you have made this thread go way too far from the subject, which is CPU performance and what i was arguing about.

i played arma 2 for a long time, never posted before. arma 2 has the exact same issue, always have. and i clearly noticed it again in the first minutes i played arma 3, because this was the one thing i expected to be fixed. you fail for lack of information and logic.

yes i know what its for, and i used it on the tests i made to prove my point on march 8. ive used all launch options a ton of times to no avail whatsoever performancewise. gj trying an ad hominem fallacy (or you simply dont know what trolling is) when you know you are wrong. this subject has been discussed extensively for over a 1 month now and you post that like you are completely oblivious to it. which means either you are oblivious to it or you just dont care. and this ia a CPU performance topic. so yes im dead-on on the subject at hand. ---------- Post added at 17:12 ---------- Previous post was at 16:54 ---------- edit after warn: Dwarden, first, you dont know what trolling is. but ill explain to you, trolling is when someone wants to make someone else angry by posting a false argument that he knows is false to begin with. so you stating that im trolling makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. second, his results were OBVIOUS to anyone following the discussing about low CPU performance on you know, that humongous topic about it on throubleshooting, you should be aware of it, you posted on it a long time ago. thus a question about exthreads on those results could only come from someone that didnt read/care about all the material showing that exact same behaviour, in this same forum. which is frustrating to anyone posting on that topic. which also means i not only was not trolling, but i spoke about CPU performance, questioning a DEV knowledge about it on a CPU performance topic. again, im dead-on on this topics subject. i understand how frustrated you are of being wrong and want to lash out at me for pointing it out, but you being angry doesnt mean im wrong. use logic and try to prove me wrong then. wait you cant, so yeah the only thing you can do is a forum warn. very professional. (saving all this as pdf/screenshots in case its erased so i can post on other arma 3 related foruns if necessary.)

really, you are implying that more than 2 cores makes a difference? god, thanks for ignoring every post proving otherwise, good to know all the effort to try to clear the subject from every angle was completely in vain, showing how you guys are indeed not going to do absolutely nothing about it. another half a decade with a dual core game here we go. il sum it up AGAIN for you: (even though you avoided any previous inquiry i made directly to you in the past in this forum) http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/ARMA%20III%20Alpha/test/arma%203%20proz%20amd.jpg http://cdn.overclock.net/d/d3/d3796154_proz20amd.jpeg I started talking about it prior to march 8 in which i proved it here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS&p=2321697&viewfull=1#post2321697 And the memory frequency comparison posted apply to every software, but tightening timings might wield better results in synthetic benchmarks. (superpi for instance)

one thing that might or not help: even without arma 3 crashing i get a huge amount of error reports related to appcrash_arma3.exe_acdd......etc etc etc (ive seem 20mb or more, right now i have about 15 of them. i clean with cccleaner from time to time) maybe if you look into the last one created for you you might get a hint of whats going on. for me on win8 theyre into: C:\Users\Username\Appdata\Local\Microsoft\Windows\WER\ReportQueue\AppCrash_arma3.exe...\Report.we Example of files inside one of those dirs: Report.we 10k (plain text) WER62DF.tmp.appcompat.txt 31k (plain text) WER630F.tmp.WERInternalMetadata.xml 7k (plain text) WER638E.tmp.dmp 25k (compiled code (gibberish)) WER6320.tmp.hdmp 4.4mb (compiled code (gibberish)) Maybe zip yours and send do BIS?

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/6963 #28

one could argue is pretty close to how it works in bf.... let the torches come. let me just put this here...

how about since lets say, 2009 (reasonable enough since quad cores were already popular by then) when performance complains about this started and kept being rejected. that would be a more accurate timeframe.

exactly. of course cpu design makes a difference, but pay more attention next time before posting.

i think they were volumetric in the first crysis, i know a lot of things were scrapped for crysis 2 and 3 in order for them to be able to run on consoles. another game that i believe uses volumetric clouds is war thunder

havent seen many ppl on the ping range i was playing once in a while. then i enter a low populated server and a script kiddie is blowing things up. i might just be very unlucky.

check this cpu chart: http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/ARMA%20III%20Alpha/test/arma%203%20proz%20h.jpg (124 kB) an i3 dual core going head to head with an i7 2600k. that shows how many cores the game uses.

its pretty clear on amd, im not sure why it shows differently on intel. check out this revew/benchmark: (translate to english if needed) http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/arma-iii-alpha-test-gpu/testovaya-chast.html and now look at the cpu usage in crysis 3:

that doesnt make sense and serves badly as a poor excuse. 2 cores is 33% of a 6 core. spreading the game throughout those 6 cores and getting 33% usage in this case, because of how its coded and how the threads are separated (or not) wields the exact same performance of a dual core with high usage. my 3d rendering software scales evenly across 6 cores using 100% of them 100% of the time. it works 6 times as fast as 1 core. and i can time it, well render software usually has an embedded timer to begin with. the problem lies in how games are coded, most games are badly coded for multithreading, but those same games get a pass because they dont need to be multithreaded, they work fine with high fps on 1 ou 2 cores, or whatever. the shit hits the fan when a game needs more processing power to even get to minimum acceptable fps, and for that some games do multithreading beautifully, or at least as much as they need so the cpu wont bottleneck the gpu, and some, like arma, are horrible at it. the excuse is how arma handles syncing, its high level scripting language and a choice into making AI and other stuff to use only 1 thread, because separating and syncing with the first core might not wield sufficient gains to make up for the effort of recoding the game that way. its a game design choice made on the first game and when the engine was being developed. but the industry is already working at full throttle on new engines and heavily multithreaded games, why? both consoles will be 8 cores with low frequency processors, they have to be heavily optimized for multicores in order to use those processors, and those games are already being made to launch later this year alongside bf4 and everything else, including ArmA 3.